Slashdot Mirror


Malicious Spam Jumps To 3B Messages Per Day

Trailrunner7 writes "Last year saw a monstrous increase in the volume of malicious spam, according to a new report (PDF). In the second half of 2009, the number of spam messages sent per day skyrocketed from 600 million to three billion, according to new research. For some time now, spam has been accounting for 90 or more percent of all email messages. But the volume of spam had been relatively steady in the last couple of years. Now, the emergence of several large-scale botnets, including Zeus and Koobface, has led to an enormous spike in the volume of spam."

10 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Enough about malicious spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about delicious spam?

  2. Oh really? by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I still see less then 1 per month in my Inbox.
    _THIS_ is the price I am willing to pay to allow Google to filter my email.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Oh really? by martinbogo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Until you take into account that the total number of legitimate emails is between 100 and 300 million messages per day. Spam messages make up over 90% of the total stream, and that means untold amount of wasted bandwidth, processing time, and frankly wasted time on code needed to combat the issue.

      --
      "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
  3. Re:Users get spammed by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't compile what you're trying to say without the ??? and Profit! directives.

  4. Re:Out of curiosity... by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because one person sending a mailshot to a hundred or so people looks a lot like a botnet.
    One person mailing their CV to 200 companies can look a lot like a botnet.
    One teenage girl telling everyone about a party can look a lot like a spammer.

    Sure if the botnet isn't well written then it'll just blast spam out of every node 24/7 but the really good ones are going to try hard to evade detection.
    Hell if you've got enough compromised PC's and you're organised as modern botnet herders are then you can collect a lot of good data on how regular users send email and make sure the nodes of your botnet avoid going far outside the curve.

  5. Too much thinking in hex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only one who read this headline and thought, "59 messages a day isn't so bad?"

  6. Seriously. by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SPAM was the absolute bane of my existence (I have several very public email addresses that have to remain that way) until the day I finally (at at the time reluctantly) decided to run all of my mail through Gmail accounts, without exception. I had used block lists, several ISP-based filters, spamassassin post-POP3 on my own local net, and a bunch of filters, and it was eating hours a day of attending to SPAM (new filters, fixing filters, marking as spam, marking as ham) and so many CPU cycles that a dedicated box couldn't keep up. Not to mention that due to the processing overhead of all that filtering, when someone did send me a message and told me so, I'd have to tell them "I'll get it in ten to fifteen minutes." And all for a few (three, really) email queues that belong to one person and a couple assistants?

    Now I forget that SPAM exists, and my email comes in more or less instantly.

    For a decade now, Google has more or less singlehandedly kept the internet usable.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  7. Where's your beloved filter now? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, we can see how much of a wonderful difference all those filtering programs that are on the market today are doing for the worldwide spamming problem. That is, no difference.

    If you want to do something about the spamming problem, start looking beyond your own nose. Stop adjusting your filtering rules constantly. Pay attention to the cause of the problem - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done about the profit-motive (and the insane margins of profit) behind spam, the problem will only continue to grow.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  8. Re:Out of curiosity... by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But it's my business to pay my ISP to funnel the bytes sent to me. If the bytes coming from your ISP are frequently evil, I'd fully support my ISP in blacklisting you, especially if it saves me money or increases my bandwidth.

    So if your ISP decides to cut yours off unless they impose some sort of anti-bot policy, I'd be in favor. And I'm perfectly willing to have my ISP do the same to me if it's what's required to play nice with their neighbors.

    If you want your ISP to be blind to your bits, and suffer the fact that they'll have to install more bandwidth and be potentially filtered (and lose customers for that, raising your prices further), be my guest. I'm willing to live with that minor invasion of privacy (cutting off obvious bots) in exchange for lower prices.

  9. Re:Out of curiosity... by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm willing to live with that minor invasion of privacy (cutting off obvious bots) in exchange for lower prices.

    That's naive. Any cost savings get funneled right into the profit machine long before you see any of it.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.